Paper bags don't emit projectiles traveling at 1,700 mph. Bullets fired from a gun have a very specific profile including speed, size, and shape that are shared by literally nothing else. There are multiple ways to track the speed, size, and shape of objects traveling within any public space. With this kind of detection, even attackers using silenced weapons could be targeted and neutralized within milliseconds of their very first shot.
I don't see this scheme working. It would require a whole bunch of sensors and a chunk of local computing power to make a 'kill' decision (or at least, an attempt to immobilize) on an individual in a crowded space based on the reliable detection of bullets fired from a gun. The kill device could be disabled prior to discharging a fire-arm, it could trigger falsely, it could be made to trigger falsely on purpose and it could malfunction. I'm sure that if you pitch this idea to the right party they'll shower you with money, nothing like more security theater and false feelings of safety to get big $.
> The only way to deal with any form of mass shooting is to have systems in public places that can automatically detect and disable the shooter within milliseconds of their first shot.
You are proposing that public spaces be fitted with some kind of system that can reliably detect bullets based on their "speed, size, and shape" profile.
How do you propose to do this without using a bunch of sensors?
> and much more to do with governments wanting as much surveillance and control over their populations as possible
Outfitting all public spaces with sound and vision recording/analysis devices seems like the very definition of mass surveillance and control.
> Anyway, generally you're referring to technical challenges, all of which could be readily solved.
Of course, we should not get bogged down in the technical implementation detail, but you can't just brush away these - very valid - technical criticisms of your idea.
